Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Agree

A very coherent and well presented AAP. I support the concept of a moderately high density mixed us neighbourhood, but am concerned that (i) the quantum of housing and business development is too large (ii) building heights and densities are too high (iii) standards for on-site open space are too low (iv) the entire development only provides for apartment type housing. Buildings above 6 storeys on this site should not be pursued (v) specific account needs to be taken about evolving needs for live-work space (vi) while I support flexible mixed use buildings, if the demand for workspace doesn't materialise, we are looking at 12000 dwellings crammed mostly on the WWTW/CCC site (vii) if housing numbers are reduced, more on-site open space provided and community facilities scaled back this can be a successful development

Mostly yes

Given the geographic challenges, the network is as good as it can be, noting the cost and potential unattractiveness to users of the necesasry long crossings of Milton Road, A14 and the railway. These will be a serious design challenge.

Mostly yes

I question the location of the Science Park local centre at the outer western edge of the area. It will be too far from the majority of the Science Park and I am assuming the reasoning was to also serve Kings Hedges/Orchard Park residents. This should be reviwed.

Mostly not

The use of the term balance is misleading, since the main consideration should be the extent to which people are likely to live and work on the site. Recognising that this is difficult to quantify and could change substantially over time, my considered view is that the extent of employment provision is too high, and should start from an analysis of (i) residents likely to work on site (ii) a sensible view about how much science based research provision should be made (iii) protecting those elements of business space existing on site that are valuable to the Cambridge economy as whole, but under the AAP are likely to be driven out by high value development opportunities. The last of these is a real challenge in all densely built up urban areas and the policy response to this in the AAP is not sufficient.

Mostly yes

Provision needs to be made for outdoor amenity space/parks and sports facilities, over and above the minimal 5 sq m per dwelling. Where schools are provided a reasonable standard of dedicated or shared outdoor sports facilities, including green space is required in addition.

Mostly not

My main concern about the AAP is that overall residential/business space densities are too high, particularly on the principal development sites to the east of Cowley Road. Building heights should generally not exceed 6 storeys. Given the good public transport connections and the objective of creating a sustainable community, net residential densities there of 250 dpha are probably acceptable. From experience of other master planned regeneration schemes, developers will take the maximum heights/densities set out in the AAP and seek to meet them or exceed them on every development parcel. Although including a small number of landmark buildings above the general maximum in the district centre is a commonly used device, more thought needs to be given to why it is being done. At the general density applied in the AAP, any tall landmark building will be irrelevant within the new neighbourhood and just serve as a pointlees (or pointed) intrusion into views from Milton/Horningsea/A14/A10 and across the Green Belt. The recently built hotel at Cambridge North which is 6 storeys serves as a good test of how intrusive buildings twice that height will be.

Mostly not

As noted in other parts of my response, I am concerned that the extent of ground level open space being provided is insufficient for a new neighbourhood, in reality a medium sized town, of say 16000 people. The key open spaces identified are mainly narrow linear spaces which follow movement corridors. Too much is made in the comparisons of the apparent scale of the linear park. It will on average be 80m wide and in places only 50m. Likewise, the Cowley Road Triangle is described as 'extensive'. when it will be no more than 70m in its smaller dimension. I have already commented on the need for outdoor sports provision (which has been completely ignored). No attempt has been made to identify potential allotment provision nor to integrate thinking about net gain in biodiversity with the open space offering. The latter will be very difficult to do effectively, given the focus on narrow linear open spaces.

Mostly not

The Biodiversity Policy in the AAP is aspirational or, put another way, exceptionally optimistic. The supporting biodiversity study is sound, but even that pulls its punches and only hints at the challenges of retaining much of the fairly meagre existing biodiversity on site. This is not to denigrate the role that green roofs and bat boxes can play, but the reality will be that other demands for public use of the limited open spaces available (and the attentions of landscape architects) will mean that the majority of bio diversity replacement will have to be off site. A reduction in development densities and a substantial increase in ground level open spaces is an essential starting place. There will still be the need for a far more ambitious programme of off-site provision and long term management than a few enhancements to riverside meadows at Chesterton Fen. One of the challenges that should be addressed is to create a far diverse set of habitats on sites being used for offsetting, not just adding to the existing damp fen habitats alongside the River Cam, which are relatively abundant, if mostly under-managed.

Mostly yes

I support the travel budget approach and have used it on other multi-plot redevelopments. The target being set is challenging given the circumstances in NECAAP area. As the Transport Study makes clear, achieving the proposed level of residential development (even with reduced parking/discouragement of car use/internalisation of trips) ultimately depends on getting existing science park and other employees out of their cars and using other modes in order to free up capacity. It also depends on essentially externalising parking provision to new Park and Ride sites. The transport study estimates this as needing £45 million investment in 2000 park and ride spaces, noting that this will be 2.5 times the existing provision at Milton P and R and this will need to be in Green Belt north of the A14. As with other aspects of NECAAP, such as open space and biodiversity, this is a direct outcome of the over-ambitious housing and employment targets on NECAAP, displacing parking/open space needs to locations outside the plan area. Taking a broader view of sustainability and planning for Cambridge, this is a sub-optimal solution and should be reviewed.

Mostly yes

The targets being adopted are correctly challenging. My concern is about the wider sustainability of the development once the requirement for off-site provision for replacement for displaced 'low value' industrial uses/parking/open space/biodiversity offsetting and the relocation of the Cambridge WWTW are taken into account. Nowhere in the draft AAP are these impacts properly articulated. Indeed the AAP is almost entirely silent on the planning case for relocating the WWTW, passing it off as a matter that will be the subject of a DCO application by Anglian Water. This is a matter which I shall raise separately which goes the heart of whether the AAP is 'sound'.